In the name of God

[IrishEyes]

Almost all of Europe has state religions...

The "supreme law of the land", the Constitution, establishes secular gov't. The 2nd Amendment specifically states that the gov't should not promote nor hinder ANY religion.

I'm guessing you meant the First Amendment, right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

 

But really, those amendments are violated all the time. I personally like the 4th, but the Patriot Act has virtually rendered that one invalid. But that's really for another topic, eh?

[paultrr]

Are you saying a basis is required for morality? I have never found a need for anything to base my morals on other than trying to treat others the way I would like for them to treat me.

 

That in itself is a basis. Its also commonly known as the golden rule. However, if one actually believes everything is predetermined than what is the use of the golden rule when one has no real choice to begin with?

[paultrr]

True, descrimination of any sort is bad. I think everyones fath is their own buisness and it should not enter the public realm. (by this same token I think ones faith should not enter the public realm in any fashion in terms of law).

 

A theist state is not for me. There are some and if that is what you want go live in one. The US IS NOT one.

 

I would never favor a theist state. And I agree one's faith really does not belong in the public realm. I would even go so far as to say that athiesm as a sort of philosophy itself does not belong in the public realm either. One objective of science is to be open to letting the evidence interpret itself. One objective of the law is that justice should be fair and impartial. One objective of the government, at least here, is that it should represent the people. I think that given the people in most cases has a very cross split on views that siding with one side or another on all this is simply not the way to do bussiness in those avenues. So in general a theist state in not a form of government I would perfer anymore than I would actually want to be a member of a pure athiest society either.

[paultrr]

I'm guessing you meant the First Amendment, right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

 

But really, those amendments are violated all the time. I personally like the 4th, but the Patriot Act has virtually rendered that one invalid. But that's really for another topic, eh?

 

Part of the reasoning for that being in the constitution was so all the people would have the ability to choose what they believe which even gurantees one the ability to choose not to believe.

 

The right to bear arms, while I firmly support such, was written in so the private militia had the power at all times to override the government as, the founding Fathers had one time done to England.

 

Freedom of speach was there to gurantee our right to be heard and to voice our opinion. Which actually is practiced very well on the net today.

 

Freedom of assembly not only gives one the right to public assembly as well as more private type like one finds in churchs and other organization.

[paultrr]

Almost all of Europe has state religions...

The "supreme law of the land", the Constitution, establishes secular gov't. The 2nd Amendment specifically states that the gov't should not promote nor hinder ANY religion.

 

There are two sides to that one. They are not to promote or hinder such. I'd say that once again religion or philosophy based upon say a system of belief or disbelief would tend to either promote or hinder such. So in general if we actually went by the Constitution neither of those positions should belong in the Government, the courts, etc.

[paultrr]

Can not find the refernce.... ;)

 

The reference was to lady justice herself. Justice in theory is supposed to be blind and only weigh the facts.

[C1ay]

Almost all of Europe has state religions...

The "supreme law of the land", the Constitution, establishes secular gov't. The 2nd Amendment specifically states that the gov't should not promote nor hinder ANY religion.

The First Amendment is really a topic for another thread. Be warned though, the interpretation of the First Amendment is a very hot topic and very hotly debated on many forums across the web. A thread here could bring in a bunch of political types with no interest in science that just want to argue the constitution of the U.S. itself. Do we want to go there?

[C1ay]

That in itself is a basis. Its also commonly known as the golden rule. However, if one actually believes everything is predetermined than what is the use of the golden rule when one has no real choice to begin with?

 

Yeah, except I tend to believe in free will.

[IrishEyes]

Yeah, except I tend to believe in free will.

C1ay

Junior Moderator

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: 33.78N 84.66W

Posts: 666

 

 

Sorry, I just had to capture it before someone else did! No offense, it's just a hobby of mine. But I noticed someone else picked up on another member's recently...

 

Back to topic, without going into another free will debate, I think that's interesting.

 

But really back to topic, how exactly do you wish to be treated, and how does that affect your treatment of others?

 

Actually, maybe I should ask that in the morality thread, huh?

[C1ay]

C1ay

Junior Moderator

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: 33.78N 84.66W

Posts: 666

 

 

Sorry, I just had to capture it before someone else did! No offense, it's just a hobby of mine. But I noticed someone else picked up on another member's recently...

 

Back to topic, without going into another free will debate, I think that's interesting.

 

But really back to topic, how exactly do you wish to be treated, and how does that affect your treatment of others?

 

Actually, maybe I should ask that in the morality thread, huh?

 

I'm glad you did since I stopped posting when I got there to see how long it would take for someone to catch it. BTW, it was me that congratulated orb recently when he hit 666 posts ;)

 

P.S. Yes, the other question would be better in the morality thread.

[Queso]

yes you did! i return the favor and congradulations, you passed the test.

now if you'd please follow me...

[paultrr]

Yeah, except I tend to believe in free will.

 

I tend to think it does exist or at least there is room for such. I think belief really does not enter in to the subject if one is true to science alone. But yes, I think human's from what we can tell exercise free will and perhaps other creatures as well are capable of such.

[paultrr]

C1ay

Junior Moderator

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: 33.78N 84.66W

Posts: 666

 

 

Sorry, I just had to capture it before someone else did! No offense, it's just a hobby of mine. But I noticed someone else picked up on another member's recently...

 

Back to topic, without going into another free will debate, I think that's interesting.

 

But really back to topic, how exactly do you wish to be treated, and how does that affect your treatment of others?

 

Actually, maybe I should ask that in the morality thread, huh?

 

A lot of these discussions interrelate weither we like them to or not. There is a general Philosophy behind science and it can and does vary somewhat from one scientists to another even if there are overlaping areas of agreement. While we can tend to agree upon the objective we do not always agree upon the subjective. That in itself could constitute evidence of free will out of natural life.

[paultrr]

The First Amendment is really a topic for another thread. Be warned though, the interpretation of the First Amendment is a very hot topic and very hotly debated on many forums across the web. A thread here could bring in a bunch of political types with no interest in science that just want to argue the constitution of the U.S. itself. Do we want to go there?

 

It also is something subject to interpretation in the first place, else why have a supereme court to decide things based upon such?

[C1ay]

I tend to think it does exist or at least there is room for such. I think belief really does not enter in to the subject if one is true to science alone. But yes, I think human's from what we can tell exercise free will and perhaps other creatures as well are capable of such.

 

For me it boils down to this. The possibility of free will exists or the determinist can prove conclusively that there is no possibility. Just saying that it might somehow be possible is not saying there is free will, just that it may be possible, is in my opinion an open-minded position. To deny the possibility outright without the ability to prove it is being close-minded.